The Shadow(?) of Beneficence

I'm reading now in preparation for a small-group colloquium on the work of Kenneth Boulding on the concept of the grants economy. Found this pregnant paragraph, that seems to shed some light on what I've meant to be up to in this space from time to time:

The pathology of exchange is familiar--depressions, inflation, unemployment, maldistribution of income, inadequate public goods, and so on. The pathology of the grants economy is less familiar because we have not thought about it so much in these terms. Nevertheless, it is equally relevant . . . . Our evaluation of the relative merits and the relative proportions of grants and exchange in the total system will depend a great deal on our evaluation of the relative efficiencies and the relative proneness to pathological states of the two systems. The absence of any theoretical vision of the grants sector of the economy as a system in its own right has distorted opinion and, in some degree, has prevented the resolution of this dispute. We are highly conscious of the nature and the pathologies of the exchange economy. Because we are much less conscious of the nature and pathologies of the grants economy, the grants economy has had an unfair advantage in this dispute. It is only as we come to see the exchange economy and the grants economy as equal partners in the total social enterprise that we can properly determine the role that should be assigned to each. (The Economy of Love and Fear, Ch 1)

Comments

[Gerry]

Boulding was a very interesting guy, looking forward to reading more of him.

The back and forth about the public sector in the linked paper is pretty interesting. The idea of collective utility is key, and I think you have to look at how and why assets are getting pooled into a collective entity and then how collective decisions get made.

I also think it is important to contrast the language here about grant economies vs. gift economies. Both would fall in the integrative category, but I think grant language is tainted with exchange to a greater extent. Grants are typically tied to a purpose and perhaps accomplishing specific goals, more like an exchange of present value for a future benefit that may or may not be preciesely named.

Phil has a lot to say about "circles of gifts" where wealthy donors support think tanks and political initiatives knowing full well that if the initiative is successful they will net huge returns in say, reduced taxes, etc. You have to ask whether threats are indeed involved even while integrative language is being used.

[Gerry]

Interesting synchronicity. I was skimming this webpage linked from a Wealth Bondage comment, and I noticed a reference to Boulding. Had to search back in the article to find the first citation with his full name, and it indeed seems to be the same guy.

BTW, I figured out that if I quote the href parameter I can post links in your comments.

[Lenore Ealy]

thanks, Gerry. I'm awol due to final prep and reading for the colloquium. Look forward to a more "normal" routine again in a couple of weeks. I'll be back able to draw upon a weekend's worth of discussion with 15 folks on the Boulding readings!

[Phil]

Went to TPE and found links books by Boulding. Lenore, is there anything more on line, particularly about grants, giving, hate, love, exchange? Seems like a fascinating figure. Someone should have told us years ago that Econ was an interesting subject. Actually, at Oxford it is taught as PPE to undergrads. Philos, Politics and Econ. A smart way to do it. Sounds like Boulding took it to heart.

[Lenore Ealy]

Not much, Phil. I'm hoping to remedy that somewhat following our very interesting colloquium on Boulding--which I've been too busy to blog. One major project piled on top of two others this week. More soon!

[Jeff Aitken]

Hi, I got here thru Chris Corrigan's parking lot. I was just reading George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, in which (amidst his argument that framing public issues is more vital than the facts within the frames, and that conservatives in the US have become masters of framing) he writes that conservative nonprofit thinktanks are funded with large monies with few restrictions because they focus on developing frames, while liberal/progressive NGOs are funded smaller and restricted because they focus on direct services to clients in need, which follows logically from the liberal/progressive frame.

Sorry to jump in after only reading a few posts and comments; hope your work on Boulding goes well.

[Jeff Aitken]

Hi, I got here thru Chris Corrigan's parking lot. I was just reading George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, in which (amidst his argument that framing public issues is more vital than the facts within the frames, and that conservatives in the US have become masters of framing) he writes that conservative nonprofit thinktanks are funded with large monies with few restrictions because they focus on developing frames, while liberal/progressive NGOs are funded smaller and restricted because they focus on direct services to clients in need, which follows logically from the liberal/progressive frame.

Sorry to jump in after only reading a few posts and comments; hope your work on Boulding goes well.

[Jeff Aitken]

Hi, I got here thru Chris Corrigan's parking lot. I was just reading George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, in which (amidst his argument that framing public issues is more vital than the facts within the frames, and that conservatives in the US have become masters of framing) he writes that conservative nonprofit thinktanks are funded with large monies with few restrictions because they focus on developing frames, while liberal/progressive NGOs are funded smaller and restricted because they focus on direct services to clients in need, which follows logically from the liberal/progressive frame.

Sorry to jump in after only reading a few posts and comments; hope your work on Boulding goes well.

[Jeff Aitken]

wow, triplicate. i hope this doesn't do the same. eeesh.